\section{Scientific Considerations}
\label{sec:considerations}

As support for our research methods we want to elaborate on the underlying scientific considerations. This will serve as arguments for the chosen type of data gathering and it will work as an explanation of the scientific nature of our project. It will also describe what we can expect of the characteristics of the outcome.

\subsection{Induction and Deduction}

We will shortly discuss the shape of our scientific reasoning; or in other words we want to explain how our argumentation is supposed to be built up. This is an important aspect to be aware of when choosing method of data gathering and expected nature of outcome. \bigskip

\noindent As our research question reflects a hypothesis, that we want to validate (based on the literature we presented in section \ref{sec:focus}), one can easily argue that our research has a deductive nature. By means of existing literature we want to deduce if our research question is relevant and confirm the presence of our hypothetical problem. Such a confirmation can be obtained by quantitative data gathering, like surveys, but this does not answer 'how' conflicting interests regarding standards influenced Symbian's loss of market share. \bigskip

\noindent By having an inductive perspective in our research we will be able to elaborate on how and why this was happening to Symbian and maybe we will be able to produce ideas for future theory. The inductive perspective can be justified by seeing our research question as an observation that we enlarge on by means of literature and qualitative data gathering, like interview, and then find patterns in the data, which leads to the production of new theory. \bigskip

\noindent Thus, our research has both deductive and inductive reasoning perspectives, and is thereby abductive in its nature. This is probably with an emphasis on deduction, because our main goal is to find out if the research question is relevant.

\subsection{Scientific Paradigms}

A discussion of how our research question touches upon different scientific para{\-}digms seems relevant for the understanding of our field of research and as a follow-up of the discussion of our scientific reasoning. This will add reasons for our  qualitative data gathering. \bigskip

\noindent As stated in the former chapter, our research has a hybrid kind of reasoning, and this fact mirrors a clash between different scientific paradigms: a post-positivist looking for evidence and verification, and a social-constructivist trying to construct a reasonable explanation. Post-positivist research has its base in non-falsified hypotheses that are probable fact or laws \citep[p. 194]{GUBA} and prefers objective measurements to construct such objective hypotheses. If we use post-positivism as our single researching perspective the outcome will have a character of objective truth. But this subject is arguably primarily related to social sciences, which usually accepts that the difference of mindsets is creating multiple subjective truths, and so reality is dynamic by nature \citep[p. 195]{GUBA}. That is why we primarily lean on a social-constructivist approach. \bigskip

\noindent The recognition of social-constructivism shows the fundamental acknowledgement that there is no objective answer to our research question. We can only find evidence for the possibility of the existence of different standardization interests leading to a loss of market share. These possibilities will be revealed through qualitative data gathering, and therefore we will conduct interviews with relevant persons to construct a certain understanding of the subject. Specifics about the interviews can be found in section \ref{sec:interview}.

A hermeneutical approach will support our constructivist oriented research \citep[p. 195]{GUBA}. This will be explained in the next subsection.

\subsection{Hermeneutics}

Hans-Georg Gadamer's interpretation of hermeneutics focuses on the subjective learning of an individual \citep{GADAMER}. He emphasizes the term of prejudice as a sort of initial standing point where one has a certain mindset of understanding of a certain subject of matter. This is also referred to as the bias of an individual. When investigating this prejudice of a subject, an individual will get influenced by the understandings of other individuals. A prejudice will be created, and ones understanding of the subject will develop. Now the individual has moved to another standing-point and the hermeneutical learning process can restart. This is what Gadamer defined as his hermeneutical circle \citep{GADAMER}. \bigskip

\noindent Hermeneutics will work as a tool to elucidate the direction of our research. Our qualitative data gathering (interviews) will change our prejudice and create a certain understanding of our subject. The analyses of the interviews will help us elaborate on this understanding and provide us a new prejudice and standing-point in the end of our research. This supports our social-constructive approach, where no subjective answer is to be found or proved, but is socially constructed and dynamic by nature. \bigskip

\noindent In the next section we will go into the qualitative data gathering and explain our ideas behind the interviews.